BuzzerBeater Forums

(sorry if it's been suggested before, but couldn't find it.)

the suggestion:
Give users the choice to permanently retire low salaried players over a certain age. (28+?, $9k & under?)
Or create an option to pay that player a small amount of money each week to *not* play basketball ever again. (instead of paying their current weekly salary) Also only players that have been with a team a minimum of 3 full seasons would even be eligible for this.

how it would work:
In the 2nd option, the player would be made *permanently* inactive (could never again use them in games or scrimmages) & they would receive no team training. Also, you would NOT be allowed to fire them after doing that. So basically it would be like a small permanent, reoccurring tax/fine as long as your team exists. However, the player would remain listed on your team's roster page. Maybe eventually there could be an icon like when a player is injured, & their name would be in red when trying to set a lineup.

the reason:
You can no longer force players into retirement, according to a mid-season news post. (will quote it in a second post to keep this short & simple). Now my suggestion is only for older, low salary players, so I don't see how it can be exploited/abused in any way. Maybe you have an irrational attachment to a player & don't want him ending his career on another team, withering away?

Poll:  Is this a good idea, and do you support it 100%? (non votes will be assumed yeses so please vote!!!)

Mid-Season News 6/21/2011 1:38:03 PM

In other news, the player's union has announced that players will no longer be subjected to automatic retirement when their managers fire them. Instead, players will now take their talents to the transfer market where their initial starting price will be ten times their salaries, with the maximum possible listing price for all players being $1,000,000. This new rule will apply for both bot-released players and players manually fired by their owners. Under the new rule, the only way for a player to be permanently retired is if no manager decides to buy him. This new rule will be implemented for the start of Season 17.

current example as of now:
Say you quickly move up leagues in a span of a few seasons. Suddenly a beloved starter or backup becomes almost useless in league games, as well as most cup games. Sure you *could* sell him, but the selling price wouldn't be that much anyway. If you choose to keep him, you're just burning money. (I admit I've done that). Too high a salary for a scrub, too low talent to be of much use... but has a long history with the team...

Now I was able to retire my only Hall-of-Fame player, Wendell Carrington (6494392). But under current rules I couldn't do so. (http://www.buzzerbeater.com/player/6494392/hofplayer.aspx...) I would have liked the option to pay him say $1k/week for life to stop playing but remain on the roster.

The final original member of my team will never be fired / be made inactive! But I believe there should at least be the option. Financially it would only *harm* anyone who choses to do it! Therefore I don't see why anyone would oppose it? Don't think it would be too difficult to implement either....

Mid-Season News 6/21/2011 1:38:03 PM

In other news, the player's union has announced that players will no longer be subjected to automatic retirement when their managers fire them. Instead, players will now take their talents to the transfer market where their initial starting price will be ten times their salaries, with the maximum possible listing price for all players being $1,000,000. This new rule will apply for both bot-released players and players manually fired by their owners. Under the new rule, the only way for a player to be permanently retired is if no manager decides to buy him. This new rule will be implemented for the start of Season 17.

current example as of now:
Say you quickly move up leagues in a span of a few seasons. Suddenly a beloved starter or backup becomes almost useless in league games, as well as most cup games. Sure you *could* sell him, but the selling price wouldn't be that much anyway. If you choose to keep him, you're just burning money. (I admit I've done that). Too high a salary for a scrub, too low talent to be of much use... but has a long history with the team...

Now I was able to retire my only Hall-of-Fame player, Wendell Carrington (6494392). But under current rules I couldn't do so. (http://www.buzzerbeater.com/player/6494392/hofplayer.aspx...) I would have liked the option to pay him say $1k/week for life to stop playing but remain on the roster.

The final original member of my team will never be fired / be made inactive! But I believe there should at least be the option. Financially it would only *harm* anyone who choses to do it! Therefore I don't see why anyone would oppose it? Don't think it would be too difficult to implement either....

Are you talking about Sam Mills (6494388)? He will most definitely have under 5k salary next season and you could retire him. If it's Charlie Yoder (6626395) I understand your concern. But with his salary he should at least be a suitable backup player in the early cup rounds.

To come back to your suggestion - maybe one could implement an extra option to retire a player if he has played for - let's say two seasons/ 44 games (the same amount to be put into the HoF). Then one could be pretty sure that no one would use this option to harm NT rosters or anything ... you would have to pay 300k for over two seasons in order to retire that player permanently. But everyone else could just retire his beloved players and not have them play for another team or just burning money.

Your proposition is well explained, but your poll is rubbish....

lol, the poll was just a joke. (i'm well aware of that part.)

C'mon, Kobe's miles above a $10k player (an elite superstar, even if he is in decline). In BuzzerBeater he's probably one of the few highest salaried guards. I'm talking about college backup level players if you want to go real world. Also since you brought up the Lakers, they could have negotiated a contract with say one of their D-league players for a *substantially* reduced rate. You don't think a marginal D-League player (not even close to NBA caliber) would take a guaranteed 50 year minimal contract over trying to make an overseas team (& probably getting cut)?? That's plain crazy & not "realistic" to quote you.

Deffered payment in professional sports is a common practice. And there's plenty of pro players take a far lesser salary to stick around with their team. Even STAR level players (who aren't even eligible in my proposal) . Kerry Wood made over $10 million dollars last season, but chose to come back to the Cubs for 1/10th of that salary despite higher offers from contending teams. But he has a job with the team for life if he wants it (& by many accounts he does). There's also a baseball player that retired in 2001 that is still getting paid through 2035. Yes, 2035.

Also, I don't see what this all would hurt...
What negative effect will this have on your team, or the game as a whole?

Anyway, in the real world you can keep fan favorites around forever as basically ambassadors/mascots. It happens all the time, in every major sport. All 5 major professional sports teams in Chicago do it. NBA, both MLB teams, NHL, etc..

Last edited by shikago at 9/12/2011 10:03:48 PM

Are you talking about Sam Mills (6494388)? He will most definitely have under 5k salary next season and you could retire him. If it's Charlie Yoder (6626395) I understand your concern. But with his salary he should at least be a suitable backup player in the early cup rounds.

To come back to your suggestion - maybe one could implement an extra option to retire a player if he has played for - let's say two seasons/ 44 games (the same amount to be put into the HoF). Then one could be pretty sure that no one would use this option to harm NT rosters or anything ... you would have to pay 300k for over two seasons in order to retire that player permanently. But everyone else could just retire his beloved players and not have them play for another team or just burning money.

Well I wasn't really thinking of any specific player I have now. Thinking more about players I've already fired long ago. Or maybe players I'd like to keep sometime in the future.

Yes, Sam Mills is my last original player, but I don't mind paying the $5k really. He'd still be usable, just I need those minutes to train younger players. Charlie Yoder is really valuable (gets 11 game ratings when in good game shape). But again, I need minutes to train others. I had been using him in the cup before this season.

Yeah, that's a good # of games you suggest. Just like qualifying for the Hall-of-Fame. & since it would be only older, low salary players, there is no chance to harm NT rosters, or do anything else harmful either.

If Kobe wants to go play for the Kings or move to China and play there, nothign LA can do about it once his contract with them is done. NOthing. This is realistic. Pay his slaary, trade (transfer) or fire.

I have no idea where you think this system your are suggesting actually ahppens in the real world. It just plain doesnt happen.

Look -- in the past firing a player equaled the player "choosing" to retire. Just as you equate the transfer list with "trading". (LOL, Is every single NBA transaction "cash only"?) Regardless it's not like BuzzerBeater is hyper-realistic. Can you imagine a team signing a 27 year old Michael Jordan then flat out firing him after a week? only to have another team sign him for a few weeks, then firing him because they couldn't afford him, etc...? Also, take the flood of free agents last year in the NBA. (like Lebron James). Cleveland continued paying his contract, why was he allowed to leave? In BuzzerBeater a team "owns" him as long as they pay him each week.

Why don't your highest paid players have guaranteed contracts? Since they don't, why are you allowed to force them to stay in Japan as long as you wish against their will? Why can't an NBBA team or an even better league's team just take Mathias Budiarso (8195984) away from you at the end of the week? Or at least force you to double his salary to have him decide to stay with you?

Players decide if/when they want to retire and how much the play for etc. Hence the lockout.

Actually a lockout is where the owners hold the power & eventually end up dictating salaries, contracts terms, and so on. The players have very little leverage or power against a lockout in most cases.

I'm not sure the change would really have too big an impact, its just a poinless/weird/needless thing.

Ok, that's a fair opinion. & I completely respect that.
Personally I don't see how having a player remain with your team (or retire w/ your team) is any more pointless than having a Hall-of-Fame. And seeing as how retirement recently changed, I just made what would seem to be an easy to implement suggestion.

I think it's pretty simple. If he is still usable, over the treshold and get's picked up, then why should he not play the game? If you want your team to be the last one to own him, then pay his salary until he is under the treshold and retire him. Players above the treshold are usually usable in early rounds of the cup + we have an option to put players in the hall of fame. List him there and let him go.